A man is planning to sue his parents for giving birth to him ‘without his consent’. The 27-year-old from Mumbai is an ‘anti-natalist’ who believes it is wrong to put an unwilling child through the ‘rigmarole’ of life for the pleasure of its parents. Anti-natalism is a movement that is gaining traction in India as young people resist the pressure put on them to have children. They argue that having children is a strain on Earth’s resources and avoid procreation for environmental reasons.

As a mother myself I judged this man as a disgruntled, ungrateful son. Then I made up other stories of him being abused and misplacing his grief, so imagine my surprise when I read that he says he has a ‘great relationship’ with his parents. And his mother’s response to this lawsuit, “I admire my son’s temerity for wanting to take us to court knowing both of us are lawyers” and “I’m very happy my son has grown into a fearless, independent and thinking young man”.

Explaining why he wants to sue his parents, he says, “I want everyone to realise that they are born without their consent. I want them to understand that they do not owe their parents anything.” He further says that, “If we are born without our consent, we should be maintained for our life. We should be paid by our parents to live”. His message to children is not to do anything for your parents unless you truly genuinely feel like doing it and for parents not to treat their children as investments.

Having got over what I judged to be a completely preposterous proposition, I began to love the sense of boundary pushing and enquiry that such a conversation can bring. I just feel frustrated by the rationale for having this conversation through the courts.

Maria’s Midweek Mindfulness

I have often tested limits and boundaries in my life. For example daring to suggest (and then prove) that prisoners can mediate their own disputes. And I also feel angry and frustrated by the limits in our society where the most politically correct view trumps all other views and cannot be tested without fear of vilification.

The Wednesday Whisper

What politically correct view do you secretly disagree with? Who can you tell?

I get quite a few comments about my blog being useful. It’s why I continue

Would you be willing to make a big effort to ask others to sign up to it?

Recent Blog Posts

Subscribe

2 Comments

I like your post. There’s also the added issue of parent’s expectations. Once upon a time parents had children and they were raised to fulfil roles within a family network. Everyone knew their place and mostly accepted it. Now, though, people grow up having been exposed to a whole wide world of possibilities through broadcast media and the internet. It is therefore much more difficult to expect a son or daughter who can see a bigger picture to accept an assigned role as an imposition. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, it is how it is now. So, while the court case opens up a whole discussion of whether adults should have children at all, the education I would like to see in the meantime, is that when adults decide to have children they accept that parenting is about preparing children to be reasoned and consciously aware adults with free will which they exercise with compassion and humility in their decision making. Not, puppets set up to meet a pre-determined life path.

Yes some extremely interesting questions have been raised by the court case. If you think of children born into extreme poverty or a cruel abusive home where there is little hope for them going forward, there is definitely a moral question to be put to parents. Who exactly are you having these children for? Logically it cannot be for the children as they are not in existence. As someone with no children, it does seem pretty clear to me that children are primarily about the beliefs, needs and wants of parents, rather than the future well being of their offspring. I have had this sense a few times – especially when I read of a young child or baby who has been barbarically killed in a tragic, clearly dysfunctional and toxic household. The idea that it is desirable, natural or god-required to procreate is clearly widespread but the court case points to the need to look at the process more objectively. Life is important but the quality of life is not irrelevant. As the world’s scarce resources deplete even further, it is likely parents will more closely assess the future well-being of their offspring before opting for parenthood. That has to be a good thing.